La Lettre A : LVMH poursuit sa razzia méthodique des talents de L'Oréal

LVMH poursuit sa razzia méthodique des talents de L'Oréal

En annonçant, cette semaine, l'arrivée de l'ancien président de Biotherm (L'Oréal) Giulio Bergamaschi à la direction d'une de ses maisons de parfum, Acqua di Parma, le groupe de Bernard Arnault étend un peu plus son tableau de chasse. Malgré un procès contestant le débauchage de Stéphane Rinderknech, LVMH continue de puiser allègrement dans le vivier de cadres du géant des cosmétiques.

Dans une note interne de nomination envoyée mardi 21 mars, LVMH a réussi l'exploit d'annoncer l'arrivée de Giulio Bergamaschi à la tête d'une de ses petites marques de parfums, Acqua di Parma, sans jamais mentionner dans sa biographie le nom de L'Oréal. Le nouvel arrivant y a pourtant réalisé l'intégralité de sa carrière, soit dix-huit ans, de 2004 à 2022 ! L'Oréal serait-il devenu un mot tabou chez LVMH ? Ou le géant du luxe finit-il par rougir à force de piller les cadres du leader mondial des cosmétiques ?

Le cas Rinderknech
Au moins, cette fois, le groupe de Bernard Arnault avait fait respecter la clause de non-concurrence de sa nouvelle recrue. Ce qui n'a pas été le cas pour le plus capé Stéphane Rinderknech. Comme révélé par La Lettre A en mai (LLA du 20/05/22), ce poids lourd de L'Oréal, passé par la direction de la Chine et des Etats-Unis, avait été placé début juin à la tête de la branche hôtelière, avec une place au comex de LVMH. Le groupe espérait ainsi le former discrètement avant de l'orienter vers la division beauté. Raté pour la discrétion.

L'Oréal avait rapidement intenté un double procès à LVMH ainsi qu'à son ancien cadre dirigeant, faisant notamment remarquer que les spas des hôtels relevaient d'une activité liée aux cosmétiques (LLA du 19/07/22). Les juges avaient ensuite donné raison en appel à LVMH avant un pourvoi en cassation de L'Oréal, qui reste à venir (LLA du 16/01/23). Ce qui n'a pas empêché les équipes ressources humaines de LVMH de s'empresser de communiquer le 6 mars dernier sur la nomination de Stéphane Rinderknech comme PDG de la division beauté, à peine son année de clause écoulée fin février.

Les "ex" sont partout
Le cas Rinderknech a fait du bruit. Mais ce n'est qu'un des arbres qui cache la forêt, tant les équipes de la DRH de LVMH, Chantal Gaemperle, pêchent sans modération dans le vivier L'Oréal. Cette semaine par exemple, Bernard Arnault fait la tournée de ses maisons en Asie, accompagné de sa fille Delphine Arnault, nouvelle PDG de Christian Dior, et rejoint par son fils Alexandre Arnault, chargé du marketing de Tiffany & Co. En Corée du Sud, ce lundi 20 mars, le big boss a notamment été accueilli par le patron des Parfums Christian Dior Corée, Nicolas Bernard-Bouissières, formé pendant quatorze ans chez L'Oréal - même si son profil sur LinkedIn ne mentionne étrangement que huit ans - avant de rejoindre la branche parfums de LVMH.

En relisant attentivement le communiqué annonçant les nouvelles prérogatives de Stéphane Rinderknech, on constate d'ailleurs qu'il chapeaute l'intégralité des marques de beauté, sauf Louis Vuitton. Normal, c'est un autre ex-l'Oréalien, Yann Musquin, officiellement patron des parfums Dior, qui selon les informations de La Lettre A travaille discrètement sur le déploiement de la marque phare du groupe dans les cosmétiques. Tandis que Pierre-Emmanuel Angeloglou, une ancienne grosse pointure de L'Oréal (vingt-trois ans de maison), lui aussi poursuivi aux prud'hommes par son ancien employeur, doit lui prêter main-forte du haut de son obscur poste de "vice-président exécutif des missions stratégiques."

Avant d'arriver aujourd'hui chez Acqua di Parma, Giulio Bergamaschi, a, lui aussi, été placé en attente chez Loro Piana comme "directeur des missions stratégiques" de ce spécialiste du cachemire haut de gamme, après son départ de la présidence de Biotherm. Et ce pendant un an, soit le temps d'une clause de non-concurrence. Il n'a pas dû être trop déboussolé car Loro Piana est dirigé par Damien Bertrand, qui a effectué neuf ans chez L'Oréal selon les indications fournies sur LinkedIn... mais dix-huit ans en réalité.

Même hors de la branche beauté
LVMH ne se contente pas en effet de placer les anciens de la grande tribu dirigée par Jean-Paul Agon et Nicolas Hieronimus à la tête de ses différentes marques de cosmétiques. Le 16 janvier par exemple, le groupe a nommé en toute discrétion Andrea Cabrera à la direction de la communication de Moët Hennessy.

Mais il s'agissait là moins de cacher ses vingt-six ans de maison chez l'Oréal que de taire le renvoi discret de son prédécesseur Jean-Martial Ribes (LLA du 26/10/22). L'ex-directeur de la communication du club de football Paris Saint-Germain (PSG), accusé par Mediapart de manipulation d'information via la création de faux comptes sur Twitter, a été écarté après sa seconde période d'essai.

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

  • Gapping up:
    • WOR +7%, SNY +6.4%, REGN +6.2%, EVTL +4.5%, SCS +3.5%, ETNB +3.1%, CG +2.4%, KBH +2.3%, AFYA +2.1%, UPST +1.9%, FRC +1.7%, AIMC +1.5%, GPC +1.1%, RJF +0.8%, ATUS +0.6%
  • Gapping down:
    • COIN -11%, CHWY -5.7%, CDTX -5.3%, MLKN -4.1%, MANU -3.8%, PHR -1.8%, EXEL -1.3%, CSX -0.8%, IONS -0.7%, MDRX -0.6%

FT : Swiss regulator defends $17bn wipeout of AT1 bonds in Credit Suisse deal

Swiss regulator defends $17bn wipeout of AT1 bonds in Credit Suisse deal
Writedown after takeover by UBS enraged holders of risky bonds

Swiss financial regulator Finma has defended its decision to wipe out a huge swath of risky subordinated bonds as part of the Credit Suisse rescue deal.

The move taken on Sunday, which rendered SFr16bn ($17.4bn) of investments worthless, has become one of the most controversial elements of the shotgun marriage between Credit Suisse and its larger rival, UBS, brokered by Swiss authorities.

Just hours after the deal was announced, other large market regulators began to distance themselves from the decision, fearful that it would endanger banks’ ability to raise capital in the future.

Enraged bondholders have pledged to sue the Swiss government and Finma over the matter.

In its first statement on the deal since the weekend, Finma said on Thursday that all the contractual and legal obligations had been met for it to act unilaterally given the urgency of the situation.

“On Sunday, a solution was found to protect clients, the financial centre and the markets,” said Finma’s chief executive Urban Angehrn. “In this context, it is important that Credit Suisse’s banking business continues to function smoothly and without interruption.”

Speaking to the press on Thursday, SNB president Thomas Jordan argued that the purchase by UBS had been the only option for Credit Suisse, saying that a takeover of the bank by the government and stabilisation of it in a process known as resolution would have risked a systemic crisis. 

“Resolution in theory is possible under normal circumstances, but we were in an extremely fragile environment with enormous nervousness in financial markets in general,” said Jordan. “Resolution in those circumstances would have triggered a bigger financial crisis, not just in Switzerland but globally.”

“[It] would not have worked to stabilise the situation but, on the contrary, created enormous uncertainty . . . It was clear that we should avoid it if there was any other possibility.” 

At the crux of the controversy was the regulator’s decision — taken in conjunction with the Swiss National Bank and Swiss ministry of finance — to preserve some value for Credit Suisse shareholders, who would nominally be subordinated to any bondholders in the capital structure.

UBS will pay SFr3.25bn for Credit Suisse’s shares.

The “AT1” bonds in question — a type of hybrid debt instrument created after the financial crash of 2008 to give banks greater capital flexibility in the event of crises — contained explicit contractual language that they would be “completely written down in a ‘viability event’ in particular if extraordinary government support is granted”, Finma said. This allowed the regulator to prioritise equity holders ahead of AT1 holders.

As part of the acquisition deal by UBS, the combined bank will receive SFr9bn of government guarantees and a SFr100bn liquidity lifeline from the Swiss National Bank.

An additional emergency government ordinance issued by Bern on Sunday had further confirmed the power to take decisions over elements of a bank’s capital structure in Swiss law, Finma added.

“[The] instruments in Switzerland are designed in such a way that they are written down or converted into [equity] before the equity capital of the bank concerned is completely used up or written down,” it said, pointing out that the bonds were designed for the use of sophisticated institutional investors because of their risky hybrid nature.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Pallas Partners are among the law firms representing bondholders that have pledged to fight the Swiss decision.

Quinn hosted a call on Wednesday joined by more than 750 participants.

Partner Richard East told the Financial Times the deal was “a resolution dressed up as a merger” and pointed to statements by the European Central Bank and the Bank of England, which distanced themselves from the Swiss approach.

“You know something has gone wrong when other regulators come and politely point out that in a resolution [they] would have respected ordinary priorities,” he said.

FT : Europe is having a better banking crisis than the US

Europe is having a better banking crisis than the US

Europe has made a valiant effort to seize back the banking shitshow crown it has owned for most of the past decade, but at the moment it seems the US still has a firmer grasp of it.

Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos has sent over some interesting charts on how US and European banks are faring at the moment. Notwithstanding the messy final denouement of Credit Suisse’s yearslong faceplants, Europe still looks better.

European bank stocks have markedly outperformed US ones this year, both in the early-year rally, the subsequent sell-off and now the bounce. Credit-default swaps are also materially lower on European bank bonds.



Some of this is just the starting point that Saravelos chose (things would look very different if you used a 10-year timeframe!) but it’s also because the European banking deposit base looks a lot more stable.

“This points to the shock in the US being more systemic, broad-based and preceding the last few weeks’ volatility,” Saravelos argues.


To this we’d add that European banks are also far bigger relative lenders than US ones, as the bond market does far more of the heavy lifting on that side of the Atlantic. That means that European banks are probably more exposed to floating rate debt than fixed income bonds.

Saravelos argues this is why the European Central Bank is sounding a lot more hawkish than the Federal Reserve at the moment — the negative impact from financial stresses on broader credit conditions will be much greater in the US than in Europe.

That sounds right to us. But longtime Europe-watchers will know that the continent’s banks are adept at finding new rakes to step on.

>>> US Close Dow -1.63% S&P -1.65% Nasdaq -1.60% Russell -2.83%

Closing Stock Market Summary

The majority of today's session was marked by lackluster action as investors awaited the FOMC policy decision at 2:00 p.m. ET followed by Fed Chair Powell's press conference at 2:30 p.m. ET. The main indices spent the morning oscillating near their flat lines, sporting only modest gains or losses, but ultimately closed the session sharply lower.

Briefly, the FOMC voted unanimously to raise the target range for the fed funds rate by 25 basis points to 4.75-5.00%. In turn, the language of the directive and the Summary of Economic Projections, which showed the Fed's median terminal rate of 5.10% unchanged from December, made it appear as if the Fed is going to entertain the idea of pausing its rate hikes soon.

That view prompted a knee-jerk, positive reaction in the stock market following the release of the directive; however, the positive price action shifted abruptly as Fed Chair Powell was speaking. Bids disappeared and stock prices fell prone to broad based selling interest that accelerated in the last hour of the session.

That retreat was hastened by Fed Chair Powell's acknowledgment that Fed participants do not see rate cuts this year. Separately, he also acknowledged his belief that the events in the banking system do not help the possibility of a soft landing for the economy.

All together, Mr. Powell did not sound especially hawkish nor dovish in his commentary. Importantly though, he did not sound particularly confident in the outlook either and we suspect that lack of confidence played a part as well in undermining investor confidence that led to the selling during his presentation.

Bank stocks found themselves under renewed selling pressure, with losses compounding during and after the press conference. The SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE) fell 5.2% and the SPDR Regional Bank ETF (KRE) fell 5.7%. To be fair, losses compounded for most stocks. 

The S&P 500 retraced all of yesterday's gains and closed just above its 200-day moving average (3,934).

All 11 S&P 500 sectors closed with sizable losses ranging from 0.9% (information technology) to 3.6% (real estate). Another notable laggard was the financial sector, down 2.4%.

Treasuries settled the session with gains across the curve. The 2-yr note yield fell 20 basis points and the 10-yr note yield fell 11 basis points to 3.50%. The U.S. Dollar Index fell 0.9% to 102.38.

  • Nasdaq Composite: +11.5% YTD
  • S&P 500: +2.5% YTD
  • S&P Midcap 400: -1.4% YTD
  • Russell 2000: -1.9% YTD
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average: -3.4% YTD

Reviewing today's economic data:

  • Weekly MBA Mortgage Application Index rose 3.0% with refinancing applications increasing 5.0% and purchase applications rising 2.0%
  • Weekly EIA Crude Oil Inventories showed a draw of 1.06 million barrels following a build of 1.55 million

Looking ahead to Thursday, market participants will receive the following economic data:

  • 8:30 ET: Weekly Initial Claims (Briefing.com consensus 204,000; prior 192,000), Continuing Claims (prior 1.684 mln), and Q4 Current Account balance (prior -$217.10 bln)
  • 10:00 ET: February New Home Sales ( consensus 650,000; prior 670,000)
  • 10:30 ET: Weekly natural gas inventories (prior -58 bcf)

WSJ : It Wasn’t Just Credit Suisse. Switzerland Itself Needed Rescuing.

It Wasn’t Just Credit Suisse. Switzerland Itself Needed Rescuing.
Crisis threatened an economic model and national identity built on safeguarding the world’s wealth

ZURICH—The chairman of Switzerland’s largest bank received an urgent call last week. On the other end were three top Swiss officials who delivered an ultimatum dressed up as a proposal. UBS Group AG needed to rescue its failing rival, Credit Suisse Group AG.

For any country, it would be a financial emergency. For Switzerland, the stakes verged on existential. Its economic model and national identity, cultivated over centuries, were built on safeguarding the world’s wealth. It wasn’t just about a bank. Switzerland itself needed rescuing.

It was Thursday, barely 24 hours into an escalating banking crisis and Credit Suisse was hemorrhaging deposits. The 167-year-old national institution appeared days away from bankruptcy. To keep it alive until the weekend, the central bank was about to quadruple a credit line of more than $50 billion. U.S. and U.K. regulators called their Swiss counterparts to make sure they didn’t let Credit Suisse bring down global markets.

Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter, central bank head Thomas Jordan and financial regulator Marlene Amstad had dialed Colm Kelleher, the UBS chairman, to present two options that were really only one: Buy Credit Suisse without a chance to fully understand its vast and complicated balance sheet—or let it fold in a protracted unraveling that UBS’s own executives worried could shatter Switzerland’s credibility as a global banking center.

Over WhatsApp, Swiss diplomats asked each other nervously whether they should move their deposits from Credit Suisse.

After a series of frantic calls and government-orchestrated meetings in Bern, UBS agreed to swallow Credit Suisse for $3.2 billion. To seal the deal, the government, which had vowed after the 2008 crisis never again to use public money to save a bank, hastily used emergency laws to do exactly that.

“Credit Suisse is not only a Swiss company. It is part of the Swiss identity,” said Thierry Burkart, head of the right-wing Liberals party, the country’s third largest. “The bankruptcy of a global Swiss bank would have had an immediate effect everywhere. There would be long and hard reputational damage for Switzerland,” he said.

The swift demise of Switzerland’s second-largest lender has rattled financial markets, and added a global dimension to a banking crisis that broke out on the West coast of the U.S. with the failure of Silicon Valley Bank.

It is still far from clear whether the Swiss have fully contained the damage. Having two world-class banks was seen as a fail-safe to maintain Switzerland’s position in world markets. The forced marriage has left it with one and has shaken ordinary Swiss people and their faith in the country’s economic and political model.

“If Swiss banking means one huge bank, what if something goes wrong with that?” said Mark Pieth, a former head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s bribery division who is now at the Basel Institute on Governance. “Then the entire country and its financial stability is at stake. It’s very un-Swiss.”

The central bank and finance ministry, as well as Finma, the top financial regulator in Switzerland, didn’t comment beyond their previous public statements. Bankers and Swiss officials involved in the talks, as well as Swiss and other Western diplomats, provide details of the rescue.

This Alpine nation has seen itself as a special case in Europe: a neutral broker and soberly governed democracy whose banks offer a discreet safe haven to far-flung investors and the world’s wealthy. Its banking system is five times the size of its gross domestic product and larger than in most economies. UBS combined with Credit Suisse has a balance sheet twice the size of the Swiss economy.

For years, Swiss exceptionalism has been chipped away. After 2008, the U.S. enacted laws requiring Swiss banks to transfer information about American clients to the Internal Revenue Service, a hammer blow to its banking secrecy.

Relations with the European Union, whose biggest powers surround the landlocked Alpine nation, are strained after Switzerland walked away from yearslong talks to bind it more closely to the trading bloc.

It is struggling to defend its 200-year-old policy of neutrality in the face of Russia’s war with Ukraine. Moscow last year put Switzerland on its “Unfriendly Countries List” after the landlocked nation, pressured by its larger neighbors and the Biden administration, joined European Union sanctions against Vladimir Putin and his closest allies.

By the same token, the country has refused to grant permission for Germany, Spain or Denmark to export Swiss military equipment into Ukraine, prompting a debate over whether Switzerland’s attachment to neutrality is damaging its reputation in Europe.

The country—once the indispensable meeting ground where great powers negotiated the end of conflicts—has been sidelined as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict by Turkey. Decades of economic and diplomatic ties to Russia have gone cold in Moscow yet become liabilities within the West.

“We have now a dilemma, a big challenge for Switzerland to be recognized as a strategic partner,” said former Swiss President Micheline Calmy-Rey. “For the time being it is not, and we are in shock.”

The U.S. ambassador last week said Switzerland was facing its most serious crisis since World War II. Foreign investors burned by Credit Suisse’s demise are rethinking their willingness to invest.

“Everything here was avoidable. We were told last week that everything was fine,” said Roger Köppel, editor of the weekly magazine Die Weltwoche and member of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. “Reality is back and is hitting Switzerland very hard.”

Credit Suisse’s founder, Alfred Escher, was an industrial godfather of modern Switzerland. The businessman and politician used the lender to underwrite Switzerland’s rail lines, tunneling through the Alps to connect the mountain-encircled nation with the rest of Europe.

Stretching back to Nazi gold, Credit Suisse had harbored money for suspect clients alongside an A-list roster of billionaires, sovereign-wealth funds and families. In a 2014 settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, the bank paid $2.6 billion and admitted its bankers had hand delivered cash and destroyed documents to help Americans hide untaxed wealth.

A banker in London took bribes to make loans in Mozambique. Another forged client signatures and lost them hundreds of millions of dollars. More recently, in 2021, Credit Suisse lost more than $5 billion when family office Archegos Capital Management collapsed, marking the start of its tumble into UBS.

Through the scandals, Swiss banks, and even Credit Suisse, still retained their image as fortresses for the rich.

The latest Credit Suisse management team included several who joined from UBS, including Chairman Axel Lehmann and Chief Executive Ulrich Körner. They made fresh pledges to clean up and saw returning Credit Suisse to health as a form of national service, people familiar with their thinking said.

Even after raising $4 billion capital late last year for a deeper restructuring, Credit Suisse traded at just 20% of its book value. Customers pulled $120 billion from the bank last fall during an internet frenzy over the bank’s health.

Not far from Credit Suisse in central Zurich, executives at UBS prepared just in case they were called on to help. For years, UBS executives and management consultants had mapped out scenarios and what UBS would require from the government, as a precaution.

UBS owed the government. It had been Switzerland’s problem child before.

The result of a merger in the late 1990s between Swiss Bank Corp. and Union Bank of Switzerland, UBS grew rapidly in the banking boom of the 2000s, opening a trading floor bigger than a football field in Stamford, Conn. It needed a Swiss government bailout in the 2008 financial crisis for losses on toxic securities. Chastened, it pulled back from trading and focused on managing wealth.

The Credit Suisse chairman and CEO had feared the call from Swiss authorities.

The bank’s stock had gone into free fall after the chairman of the bank’s biggest investor, Saudi National Bank, speaking in a television interview at a finance conference in Riyadh, said it wouldn’t invest more in Credit Suisse: “Absolutely not,” he said, citing rules on bank ownership, since Saudi National Bank already owned 9.9%.

What the market heard was that Credit Suisse’s largest shareholder wouldn’t back it. Mr. Lehmann, at the same Riyadh conference, rushed back to Zurich. Credit Suisse appealed to the Swiss National Bank and Finma to calm the markets with a message of support.

That Wednesday night, Credit Suisse received a more-than $50 billion liquidity line from the central bank, and the regulators said it met Swiss capital and liquidity requirements.

Credit Suisse customers kept pulling deposits Thursday. Authorities moved to make more than $150 billion in additional liquidity available to the bank, Ms. Keller-Sutter, the finance minister, said. The government didn’t disclose the move, hoping to keep Credit Suisse alive until the weekend, when a permanent solution could be found.

Stung by having to rescue UBS before, Swiss authorities had a plan to handle big banks if they fell under stress. To avoid tapping taxpayer money, the country’s financial regulator would swiftly impose losses as needed on shareholders and bondholders.

That solution was discarded for Credit Suisse, as authorities feared it would cause panic among bank investors around the world, Mr. Jordan, the central bank governor, said Sunday.

UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher got his call Thursday from the Swiss officials, a tripartite representing Finma, the Swiss National Bank and the finance minister. The message was clear: UBS would take over Credit Suisse, or the latter would go bankrupt, potentially bringing down UBS and other banks in the fallout.

Irish-born Mr. Kelleher joined UBS as chairman in April, after a long career at Morgan Stanley, including as chief financial officer in the 2008 financial crisis. His team swung into action, helped by a blueprint developed under former UBS Chairman Axel Weber on what a combined UBS-Credit Suisse could look like.

The UBS and Credit Suisse chairmen and CEOs had a quick meeting with the finance minister Friday at UBS, where they were told they would sign a deal by Sunday.

Credit Suisse’s large shareholders in the Gulf, including Saudi National Bank, worried they were about to lose their entire investment. They called Swiss officials, including the central bank governor and government ministers, and wrote letters, arguing that their rights were at risk of being trampled on, and that they might be able to come up with a better deal.

On Saturday evening, Mr. Kelleher took a break from dinner to call Mr. Lehmann with a $1 billion offer. It was less than Saudi National Bank’s investment for one-tenth of the bank in November, a deal Mr. Lehmann brokered.

On the Credit Suisse side, executives fretted whether they could get a deal through their shareholders. A quarter of the shares were held by a trio of Gulf investors. The government had a solution. It passed a law that allowed a deal to pass without a shareholder vote. A government official read out the new law to Credit Suisse executives, without giving them it in writing, according to people familiar with the matter.

Sunday morning, the Gulf shareholders Qatar Investment Authority and Olayan Group, and the Saudi Public Investment Fund, part-owner of Saudi National Bank, made a last-ditch proposal to Credit Suisse’s board. They would inject around $5 billion, keep the stable Swiss bank and sell off other parts over time.

Mr. Lehmann put a call into the Swiss finance minister. UBS is the only option, he was told, and the line went dead.

Swiss officials from the get-go would only consider a Swiss option to save Credit Suisse, people familiar with the matter said. They shot-down an informal approach from U.S. asset management giant BlackRock, Inc. to get involved, these people said.

Credit Suisse’s board dug in its heels on the low price. With the announcement hours away, Swiss officials told UBS to try harder.

Late Sunday afternoon, UBS agreed to lift its offer and pay a little over $3 billion—less than half Credit Suisse’s market value on Friday. Crucially, Swiss regulators would write off $17 billion on the riskiest type of Credit Suisse bonds. The market for these bonds, commonly issued by European banks, was severely hit Monday. UBS would also get a more than $200 billion liquidity line from the central bank, and a government guarantee of over $9 billion against some potential losses.

To get the deal done, the government waived antitrust laws on the grounds that financial stability was at stake.

“Any other solution would really have triggered a financial crisis,” said Ms. Keller-Sutter, the finance minister.

At a Sunday news conference announcing the deal, Mr. Kelleher said UBS buying Credit Suisse was in the best interest of Switzerland.

FT : British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe plans to offer more than £5bn for Manches

British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe plans to offer more than £5bn for Manchester United
Entrepreneur is competing against Qatari businessman Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani for Premier League football club

British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe is planning to make a bid that would value England’s Manchester United Football Club at more than £5bn, a record acquisition price for a sports team, according to two people briefed about the plan.

Ratcliffe, founder of the Ineos chemicals empire, is competing against Qatari businessman Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani for the takeover of the most successful English Premier League football club.

Both bidders are due to submit their proposals to the Glazer family, which controls the club, ahead of a 9pm UK deadline on Wednesday, the people said. The value of Ratcliffe’s bid includes debt. The value of Sheikh Jassim’s bid remains unclear.

Their bids follow a series of meetings with Manchester United officials at the club’s Old Trafford stadium and Carrington training facility. A full sale would beat the $4.65bn paid by Rob Walton, heir to the Walmart retail fortune, to acquire the Denver Broncos American football franchise last year.

Manchester United, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, has a market capitalisation of $4.2bn and debt of about $700mn. Shares rose 4.8 per in New York on Wednesday.

The Glazer family, which is advised by merchant bank The Raine Group, purchased United in 2005, in a £790mn leveraged buyout led by the late Malcolm Glazer that infuriated fans for loading the club with debt.

The Glazers were among the first wave of foreign owners to buy into English football, following Roman Abramovich’s acquisition of west London rivals Chelsea FC in 2003, as the international popularity of the Premier League attracted global capital.

In May last year, US investors paid £2.5bn to acquire Chelsea from Abramovich, who had sanctions imposed by the UK following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Months later, the Glazers said they would consider selling United as part of a strategic review that could involve raising capital or finding partners to invest in Old Trafford.

Several investment firms are also interested in injecting capital in exchange for a minority stake, people with knowledge of the matter said.

One of Britain’s richest people, Ratcliffe has expanded Ineos from chemicals into consumer brands such as Belstaff, a British fashion label. The group also owns a series of sports assets, including French football club OGC Nice, a third of the Mercedes Formula 1 team, and the Grenadiers cycling team.

Led by Dutch manager Erik ten Hag, Manchester United has climbed to third in the Premier League after finishing sixth last season and missing out on qualification for the lucrative Uefa Champions League.

Manchester United won its first trophy since 2017 after beating Newcastle United in the Carabao Cup final in February.